Year: 2017

Give Dame Judi Dench a role in your movie and good things are going to happen.

Make her royalty and your film is bound to shine no matter how average and uneven the script might be.

Such is the case with “Victoria and Abdul,” the latest film from British director Stephen Frears.

Based on the book of the same name from Shrabani Basu, “Victoria and Abdul” follows the unlikely, but true account of a Muslim man from India’s friendship and tutelage of an aging Queen Victoria during the final years of her reign in the late 1800s. Their devotion and loyalty to each other creates massive cracks in the British Royal Family and threatens to destroy her reign.

As Queen Victoria, Oscar winner Dame Judi Dench is a stoic, stern monarch withered by decades of loneliness seeking companionship during the waning years of her life.

Over the course of the film, her Victoria warms considerably in response to Abdul’s kindness and friendship and Dench’s performance becomes increasingly engaging as the movie progresses.

Having Dench melt into the role of Victoria is exactly as captivating as it sounds.

While certainly not as broad and demonstrative as Meryl Streep’s turn as the titular character in Frears’ “Florence Foster Jenkins,” Dench could easily see herself earn her eighth Academy Award nomination and second as Queen Victoria following 1997’s “Mrs. Brown.”
Bollywood star Ali Fazal brings warmth and nuance to the role of Abdul.

There’s a slight layer of naivety and amazement Fazal offers early in the film that fades into the background as Dench’s performance almost completely overwhelms the screen.

This dynamic feels intended by Frears, as Abdul takes a considerable backseat once the two begin their work together. Fazal is left with a rather one-note performance, though that one-note of friendly foreigner is played very successfully.

There just isn’t the same level of character depth to the unlikely student/teacher dynamic as can be found in the similar, yet more exceptional “The King’s Speech.”

The film also boasts a wealth of strong supporting talent, including Eddie Izzard as Victoria’s conniving son Bertie and the late Tim Pigott-Smith as the queen’s private secretary.

But the most impressive secondary performance comes from Adeel Akhtar as Abdul’s friend and aide Mohammed. Akhtar delivers a consistent scene-stealing comedic presence in much the same way he sparkled in limited screen time as Naveed in the hit romantic comedy “The Big Sick.”

He is able to provide the same dry, brash humor to Mohammed, but also carries more than his fair share of dramatic acting with a rich, bittersweet performance capped off by two of the best acted scenes any supporting performer will give this year.

The thing that’s most surprising about “Victoria and Abdul” is its subtle, subversive humor that undercuts and accents what otherwise would be a pretty mundane, average period drama.

Jokes don’t fly off the screen in “Victoria,” but audiences paying attention to the banter will be treated with consistent, quality laughs.

Much of the film’s success stems from Frears’ ability to draw quality performances from his actors, most notably his chemistry with Dench, who earned an Oscar nomination for her work in his 2013 film “Philomena.”

While it’s unlikely that “Victoria” will match the same level of critical or awards season success as the four nominations for “Philomena,” Dench will certainly be a strong frontrunner for a Best Actress nomination and the script from writer Lee Hall could be an outside contender in Best Adapted Screenplay.

A very dry film that may rub some audience members the wrong way, “Victoria and Abdul” is a well above average biopic featuring a royal Dench at the top of her game.

Her performance alone is worth the price of admission, and there’s enough dry humor to boot to make “Victoria and Abdul” a drama worth seeing this fall.

Jeff Bauman is more than a photograph, more than just a symbol of strength during a harrowing moment in American history.

In a now iconic picture, Bauman is shown being carried to safety by a stranger in a cowboy hat following a terrorist attack at the 2013 Boston Marathon.

His journey before and after a homemade bomb took his legs and ripped his life apart has become the subject of “Stronger,” an emotional and gripping drama from director David Gordon Green.

Elegant and touching, “Stronger” doesn’t focus on the attack itself, but rather the physical and mental turmoil the events inflict upon Bauman, his family and estranged girlfriend Erin.

There’s a beautiful simplicity to the screenplay written by John Pollono that shows how Bauman seeks to define himself on his own terms and how something greater can come from the most difficult circumstances.

Academy Award nominee Jake Gyllenhaal does a masterful job giving Bauman immense complexity, balancing Jeff’s natural sense of humor and warmth with a bitter inner coldness that the bombing left inside him emotionally.

It’s a credit to Gyllenhaal’s performance, and especially to Bauman as a man, that everything about Jeff in “Stronger” comes from a place of love, that all his intentions are driven by a deep, rich heart.

No more evident is that love shown than in Gyllenhaal’s remarkable chemistry with Emmy winner Tatiana Maslany, who plays Bauman’s estranged girlfriend Erin Hurley.

The passion that Jeff and Erin have for each other radiates off the screen in a raw emotional way, where it truly feels that every word they speak to one another hammers home to the soul of their partner.

While his is the much larger part, Maslany undoubtably rises to the occasion and matches Gyllenhaal’s dedication and passion for authenticity. Their relationship is the single best part of “Stronger.”

“Stronger” occupies the same physical space and time as “Patriots Day,” Peter Berg’s methodical action/drama about the bombing, but approaches from a distinct, singular perspective.

“Patriots Day” is flashy and attempts to encapsulate the entire experience in a 120-minute film; “Stronger” is much more nuanced and smaller in its examination.

The bombing itself defines “Patriots Day” whereas Jeff Bauman’s inspirational journey is the driving force of “Stronger,” which is a better film on the whole.

Director Green makes the wise decision to stay out of his actors’ way for much of “Stronger,” allowing Gyllenhaal and Maslany ample room to breathe in the moment.

This gives the film a more grounded, realistic tone, fitting Sean Bobbitt’s tempered, unobtrusive cinematography.

The single moment this changes, however, comes via a devastatingly moving flashback sequence that drives viewers inside Bauman’s mental state in a profound way. The effect is brief, yet forceful and does a terrific job of jarring audiences awake and bringing them into the moment.

“Stronger” will ultimately be a fringe awards contender in most categories, though Gyllenhaal’s dynamic and powerful performance could lead to a Best Actor nomination at the Academy Awards.

The one drawback would be a reluctance on voters’ part to fill the category with biographical performances when Gary Oldman’s turn as Winston Churchill in “Darkest Hour” and Benedict Cumberbatch’s role as Thomas Edison in “The Current War” will likely also garner consideration.

Backed by smaller independent studio Roadside Attractions, “Stronger” hasn’t gotten the attention it rightly deserves from audiences who frankly don’t know this film exists. It’s a movie that people simply need to see.

With terrific performances from Gyllenhaal and Maslany and a touching inspirational story, “Stronger” is an affecting drama worth grabbing some tissues and catching in theaters.

Prestige cinema comes at a price.

For some, the nearly two-hour and 45-minute science fiction epic “Blade Runner 2049” is a masterpiece of dynamic, visually stunning moviemaking from French Canadian auteur Denis Villeneuve.

And yet other moviegoers will find the Ryan Gosling sequel to the 1982 Harrison Ford cult classic excessive, boring or outright stupid.
What “Blade Runner 2049” does best is help define who we are as moviegoers. It’s a film that rewards active, engaged audiences seeking deeper meaning artistry. It’s also a film that punishes more passive audiences looking for simple, no-frills entertainment.

“Blade Runner 2049” is a movie drenched in frills, crafted with a discerning eye and a work of art that will be long debated years from now as one of the best films in 2017 and in the sci-fi genre in general.

The less you know about the film heading to the theaters the better, though rewatching Ridley Scott’s original film will help fill in the background. The only explanation of “Blade Runner 2049” needed prior to screening is defining the title itself. In the world of the film, a “blade runner” is a law enforcement officer tasked with the “retirement” or elimination of “replicants,” highly intelligent robot slaves designed to be nearly identical to humans.

Coming off a Best Actor Oscar nomination last year for “La La Land,” Gosling delivers a more reserved, internal turn as a young “blade runner” known simply as K. It’s a performance that won’t blow audiences away on a first viewing; there’s too much happening on screen to notice the nuance in Gosling’s somber, emotional work.

With closer examination, viewers will appreciate the subtle changes Gosling brings out in K as the plot twists and winds towards its conclusion. K’s conflict as he struggles with his humanity and the job required of him is delicately unwoven by Gosling in a performance rarely matched in science fiction filmmaking.

Thirty-five years after starring in “Blade Runner.” Ford returns in “2049” with a decidedly smaller, but equally intriguing performance as now-retired blade runner Rick Deckard.

While it may seem at first glance that Ford lacks interest in revisiting old roles, he invigorates Deckard with a well-worn weariness that hides deeper emotion. Support for the film as a whole as well as Ford’s storied career could lead to a surprising, yet deserved Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

Villeneuve takes his time with a deliberate, metered film that allows “Blade Runner 2049” plenty of room to breathe. This lingering in and out of scenes will thrill viewers mesmerized by the vibrant cinematography and will infuriate audience members longing for the film to shave off 20-30 minutes off its running time.

But “2049” would be such a dramatically different, lesser film if constrained by time that its slight excesses become wholly justificiable and necessary to the overall success of the film.

Visually, “Blade Runner 2049” is one of the most dynamic, spectacular pieces of cinematic art you’ll find in a long time. The care, craft and artistry taken to frame, light and shoot each second of “Blade Runner 2049” is so meticulously designed that the film stands as a 160-minute advertisement advocating for the continued longevity of cinema as an art form best seen on the big screen of a movie theater.

The film’s cinematographer, Roger Deakins, has been nominated for thirteen Academy Awards for shooting iconic movies like “The Shawshank Redemption,” “No Country for Old Men” and “Skyfall.” Without a doubt, “Blade Runner 2049” is his most stunning, captivating work to date and has to be considered the frontrunner for the cinematography Oscar.

Deakins winning his first Academy Award on a fourteenth nomination would not be considered a lifetime achievement award, but the cap on top of the pinnacle of his illustrious career.

Strong critical support and dazzling technical work will likely make “Blade Runner 2049” a contender in numerous Oscar categories including Best Picture in much the same way “Mad Max: Fury Road” did with 10 nominations in 2015.

Dynamic and captivating, “Blade Runner 2049” is without question one of the best films to arrive in theaters in 2017. Its picture-perfect cinematography and terrific performances combined with a complex storyline and lengthy running time make “2049” a must see or a must skip film depending on what kind of moviegoer you are.

Billie Jean King’s infamous tennis match with aging trash talker Bobby Riggs takes a back seat to private, personal moments in the new biopic “Battle of the Sexes.”

While the film makes its mark with the 1973 King/Riggs showdown at the Houston Astrodome, viewers rarely see the two on screen together as directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris meander through King’s love life and Riggs’ incessant gambling and showmanship.

There’s a number of excellent performances including Academy Award winner Emma Stone as King and Academy Award nominee Steve Carell as Riggs. But the scenes are so disjointed and uneven that “Battle of the Sexes” misses the mark as a feature film.

It’s clear that Dayton and Faris want to be as complete and thorough as possible, but in doing so, no one aspect of “Battle of the Sexes” succeeds.

It seems inevitable that Stone will earn another Academy Award nomination for her portrayal of King, which is nearly on par with her Oscar winning turn in “La La Land” and has the real King’s seal of approval. Stone does a wonderful job of bringing audiences into King’s conflicted mind with a single look and she displays remarkable chemistry with her “Birdman” co-star Andrea Riseborough as King’s hairdresser and mistress Marilyn.

Love takes center stage throughout “Battle of the Sexes,” especially in Stone’s storyline as King seeks to balance her love for her husband Larry and emerging infatuation with Marilyn against her obsession with tennis.

An additional subplot that squares King off against the male-dominated U.S. Lawn Tennis Association gives Stone plenty of meaty moments to shine in and will make her Oscar highlight reel difficult to wean down.

By comparison, Carell’s slimy, arrogant and broad turn as self-described “male chauvinist” Riggs feels secondary, as if Dayton and Faris decided to make the Riggs storyline an occasional afterthought for comedic relief against the more dramatic fodder.

Regardless of how it’s used in the film, Carell barrels his way through scenes with brash aplomb with a performance that evokes his Golden Globe nominated work in “The Big Short.”

“Battle of the Sexes” also boasts an outstanding, though underutilized supporting cast including comedienne Sarah Silverman as King’s business manager, Austin Stowell as King’s almost too understanding husband and Alan Cumming as King’s stylist representing the plight of closeted LGBTQ individuals during the era.

Of note among the supporting players is Bill Pullman’s all too convincing work as U.S. Lawn Tennis Association head Jack Kramer, a part Pullman melts into as he delivers frank, misogynistic diatribes with ease.

Technically the film is masterfully shot by Linus Sandgren, who comes off Oscar winning work on “La La Land” to deliver a rich, deep tone to “Battle of the Sexes” that simultaneously highlights period color palettes and contemporary camera work.

It’s a film that feels made in the 1970s in almost documentary style where there’s a coarse grit to each frame that makes “Battle of the Sexes” appear as a series of pictures shot in succession during 1973.

“Battle of the Sexes” will probably be in awards conversation this fall thanks in large part to strong support from the film’s subject and its inclusive message.

Among the potential nominees, Stone has the best chance to win an Academy Award, though a Best Picture nomination isn’t out of the question and a win could result under the right set of circumstances.

Carell likely will miss out on accolades for his work as Riggs, though it could be lumped into the minds of voters when they consider his turn in Richard Linklater’s “Last Flag Flying” due in November.

Strong turns by Stone and Carell make “Battle of the Sexes” a solid, yet flawed biopic that does justice to its subject matter without rising to an elite level.

Moviegoers interested in watching as many award contenders as possible should find a way to catch “Battle of the Sexes,” though rushing to the theater might not be necessary.

You’re not going to like the new Jennifer Lawrence movie.

It’s a slow, plodding arthouse melodrama filled with allegory and widely open to interpretation. If you can make it through the entire two-hour running time, you’ll be stunned how a film like this gets made.

But that’s just the way director Darren Aronofsky likes it. He relishes how audiences have left “mother!” in disgust, making it one of the rare features to earn a F from CinemaScore, which polls audience reaction.

There’s an entire promotional campaign that accurately bills “mother!” as perhaps the most polarizing film this decade.
“mother!” isn’t good. It isn’t bad, either. It’s both and neither, simultaneously.

The film is nothing short of a spectacular disaster, beautifully brilliant in a “why would people want to see this” sort of way. Aronofsky and Lawrence have teamed to make a grotesque, melancholy feature that leaps to the top of any best bad film or worst good film list.

“mother!” is a uniquely enthralling experience that almost no one should go and see in theaters, but that the most adventurous audiences will find absolutely captivating.

If you decide to trek and find “mother!” on the big screen, it’s important to know as little as possible going into a screening. This will allow viewers to authentically experience how Aronofsky layers and builds his complex, controversial allegory. The weird, subversive brilliance of what Aronofsky attempts to create on screen will hit different audience members at different times, leaving viewers stunned, scarred, upset and any other multitude of emotions.

Names are never truly spoken within the film, a deliberate construct used to develop the allegory. Lawrence’s credited role of Mother lives in a large isolated farmhouse with her husband (Javier Bardem), a brooding poet only referred to as Him. When a Man (Ed Harris) and Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrive unannounced at the home, their presence sets off a chain reaction that shakes the foundation of the couple’s marriage.

Lawrence delivers a tremendous, subtle performance with the entire film resting on her shoulders, as Aronofsky frequently frames the camera tightly on her pale, withering face. Her turn isn’t flawless, especially as the film progresses deeper into Aronofsky’s mind, but Lawrence plows forward with reckless abandon.

“mother!” forces Lawrence on an emotional roller-coaster that she rides with vigor, giving her best in the moments that nearly crack the character’s core. This will prove to be among her most iconic performances, as much for her devotion to being present in the moment as the strangeness of the film’s content.

Oscar winner Bardem thrives in this environment, given the freedom to saunter in and out of scenes with a strong, brooding character that reverberates in the moment long after he’s no longer present. Bardem is a master of twisting a phrase so tightly that a character’s true intentions are a complete mystery. There’s something dynamic about his performance that gives “mother!” the energy necessary early in the film to bridge the gap until Aronofsky’s script reveals itself

“mother!” has the attitude and vibrancy as if audiences are peering inside the mind of the film’s auteur director after a weekend bender.

Aronofsky simply doesn’t care about the audience reaction and approaches everything from dialogue to story structure to the overwhelming number of extreme closeups on Lawrence in this manner. The result is an elegantly infuriating dramatic dance that culminates in one of cinema’s wildest rides.

There’s simply no chance that “mother!” will be honored with any major accolades this fall. It’s a far too divisive and controversial film to hold much of a chance for an Academy Award win. It would not be surprising, however, to see Lawrence’s emotionally charged, increasingly demonstrative performance earn Best Actress considerations as the film’s lone nomination.

“mother!” isn’t for the mainstream audiences it was promoted for; it isn’t even the provocative horror film it was made out to be. But there’s something alluring in the broken brilliance of Aronofsky’s work that might engage and excite a small portion of frequent moviegoers keen on experiencing film in a way they’ve never seen before, or likely ever again.